Self surveillance in a Panoptic society 

If you were unfortunate enough to have been incarcerated in England at the end of the 18th Century, you may have found yourself inside a ghoulish structure called the Panopticon.  This unique architectural structure was the brainchild of philosopher named Jeremy Bentham who, in 1791, theorised this glass-roofed, circular structure featuring prison cells facing inwards along its external wall, which faced a central guard tower. This ingenious structure allowed guards, stationed within the rotund tower, to keep all inmates in the surrounding cells operating under the assumption that they were under constant surveillance. Its ingenuity lay in the fact that the inmates could only see the guard tower, but could not, in fact, see whether or not the guards were watching them  (The editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Panopticon).  The effect of this on the inmates wascompelling, for they were forced to assume that they were being watched at all times, whether this was really the case or not. Inmates were thus driven by fear of the seemingly omnipotent, omnipresent guard in the tower, to modify their behaviour in accordance with the prison’s expectations of them. In short, the inmate polices himself in fear of perceived surveillance and subsequent punishment. 

158 years later, the theory underlying the Panopticon was reimagined by George Orwell as he wrote what came to be known as the “definitive book of the 20th century” (Crown, Sarah, 2007) the dystopian fiction 1984. In 1984, civilians are taught to believe that “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU” (Orwell, 1949, p. 3). Devices such as two-way telescreens, hidden microphones, the existence of undercover thought police and laws encouraging individuals to report potentially subversive behaviour in one another, breeds a culture where individuals are made to believe that they have no privacy and are under constant surveillance. In reality, the governing Inner Party and its mythical leader ‘Big Brother’ is the minority and cannot possibly place the majority under continual surveillance. Instead, the government in 1984 relies on the principle of the Panopticon, causing civilians to believe they may be watched at any time in order that they self-police. The Panopticon may sound like the stuff dystopian fictions are made of, but its most frightening element is that, far from being a theoretical concept belonging to an 18th Century philosopher, the principle of the Panopticon has come to underscore the way that contemporary society operates in ways that even Orwell could not have envisaged.

The concept of the Panopticon has become increasingly relevant to the way that postmodern citizens are managed, enabling contemporary reality to mimic Orwell’s dystopian vision of a society subject to constant monitoring and absent of genuine privacy. In 1975, Michel Foucault, a French philosopher, studied the Panopticon and developed a socialtheory called Panopticism. Foucault theorises Panopticism in his book Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, as follows: “being the receiving end of asymmetrical surveillance in the sense where he is seen but does not see; he is an object of information, never a subject in communication” (Foucault, Michel). As members of contemporary society, weare simultaneously participants in a panoptic society, as we are conditioned to behave as though we are being watched at all times. A defining feature of everyday postmodern life is the presence of surveillance. Ostensibly its purpose is to catch those who break laws by recording their activity; however it works on a deeper level too, as a deterrent and stimulus for self-monitoring.  For example, a driver is much less likely to monitor their speed if they retain an awareness of the possibility, however remote, that a speed camera may beobserving them. Likewise, a graffiti artist is less likely to graffiti if they think a security camera may be present. Whether the cameras are switched on or even visible is irrelevant, the mere potential presence of them is enough to influence the behaviour of most people. Awareness of being observed creates conformity, by fear of being caught out or punished. ‘Smith!’ screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. ‘6079 Smith W.! Yes, YOU! A sudden hot sweat had broken out all over Winston’s body.” (Orwell, 1949, p.42)this description could equally pertain to the moment that the driver’s awareness of the potential speed camera wanes and they are startled by the flash, the open-mouthed moment captured in the photograph accompanying the penalty that follows.

In this current era it is not hard to prove that modern state has moved away from enforcing their authority physically, to enforcing it psychologically. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. But if you really need that kind of privacy,the reality is that search engines, including google, do retain this information for some time.” (CEO of google, Eric Schmidt).  Schmidt clearly demonstrates how the internet and social media supposedly, constantly examine us in the sense that we assume that we are given the freedom to say, show and express what we like but we are just a spectacle for others to see in the world of surveillance, whether those others are of authority or not. The internet plays dramatically on this panoptic sense of being seen but cannot see when and who is watching you.

If, as Foucault argues, “The man described for us, whom we are invited to free, is already in himself the effect of a subjection much more profound than himself. A 'soul' inhabits him and brings him to existence...the soul is the effect and instrument of political anatomy; the soul is the prison of the body” (Discipline and punish, p.99) then the Orwellian principle “Freedom is slavery” (1984, p.19) takes on a whole new meaning. Once the postmodern citizen subjects him/herself to self-surveillance, the need for external surveillance becomes redundant, as does the meaning of the word slavery. The lesson of 1984 is as pertinent today as it ever was: The importance of privacy is a fundamental human right and in order for it to remain so; we desperately need to figure out how to escape this panopticon before we become its prisoners.